Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is regrettable that it has happened today, when I am here. [Laughter.] However, maybe it is for the better that I am here, because I am seeing the scrutiny in action.

I go back to the point that I made before: we have a process in place that, broadly speaking, works, which is demonstrated by the fact that the numbers are not high overall. As I said, earlier, we will not get it right all the time, but the aspiration is to do so.

It is a shared responsibility: everyone involved in the process of laying an instrument, from drafting through to laying it before the Parliament—all the officials involved, those involved in legal checks, and ministers—have a share of the responsibility, and no part of that system should abrogate its responsibility. We ensure that Government lawyers have on-going support, training and guidance to consider proposals, legal issues and drafting. There is a monthly session for lawyers to share knowledge about SSIs. That happens over the process and provides opportunities for peer support and learning. Further, once a specific SSI is drafted, it is checked within the team that drafted the instrument. However, the team is not just marking its own homework—another lawyer who was not involved in the drafting has to check it, too.

That speaks to me of a system that, broadly speaking, works, but I am always up for considering what else can be done. It is incumbent on us to consider that but, if there are specific things that this committee or any other committee of Parliament, as a result of its experience of considering any instrument, thinks could improve the process further, we are completely open to hearing what that might be.

Yes, I can tell you that. First of all, it is good to see you, too—I am delighted to be here.

We expect to lay 57 SSIs between now and the summer recess. There will be 19 affirmative instruments, 27 negative, nine laid with no procedure and two affirmative orders in council, which require approval at a meeting of the Privy Council with the King present as well.

On the committee volumes, there will be 11 for the Finance and Public Administration Committee, nine of which will fall in this month. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee will have nine; the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee and the Social Justice and Social Security Committee will have seven each; and the Education, Children and Young People Committee will have six. I think that there is nothing unexpected there—those are the committees that ordinarily have to deal with the most instruments. All the other committees will have fewer than five, at present—I should, of course, say that these things are always subject to change.

Of specific interest to this committee, there will be one for this committee, which will probably be towards the summer recess.

We will certainly endeavour to do so. There will be some instruments that might be longer than others.

This may be an issue that one of the committee members was going to follow up with me, but I am aware that there was a particular issue with one instrument. That goes back to the point about an instrument being withdrawn and relaid. A particularly lengthy set of regulations went to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, and the committee had concerns about the time that was available to it to consider that instrument.

Following that experience and after discussion with officials, at my request, my officials have reviewed and updated the guidance for SSIs to emphasise the absolute need for the people with policy responsibility for any SSI to engage with the relevant subject committee as early as possible if there are to be regulations of significance. Clearly, we want to ensure that the relevant committee can build that into its programme and understand that it will have to set aside time for that.

We have also implemented an initial level of triage for bids for SSIs that are lengthy or complex. That is an internal process, through which we can ensure that the instrument is in the right place and that it absolutely needs to be one lengthy instrument. There might be another means of handling the issue, such as breaking it down into more than one instrument. That would not necessarily reduce workload for the committee overall, but it might make the process more manageable. That will enable my officials, who have overall responsibility for ensuring that the programme of legislation moves forward—but not direct policy responsibility—to re-emphasise the need for such engagement with the relevant committee. That is a practical example of having learned from experience to make sure that we refine and improve our processes going forward.

I have made the point that there are some complexities involved relating to interactions with other subordinate legislation and the other demands on those who are involved in the process across a range of other activities. That is the challenge that we face.

There is a commitment to refer one in each parliamentary year, so yes. We will make it clear in due course what that might be, but, essentially, we intend to meet the agreement that we have with the committee.

Certainly—just let me get to the right part of my briefing papers.

Inevitably, some LCMs will come to the Scottish Parliament arising out of the UK Government’s programme. As to what those might be, that is something that we would flag in the usual fashion.

We have given some indication of legislation that we anticipate might require an LCM in due course, including the proposed railways bill, the Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill—a private member’s bill, which I am involved in responding to on our side—the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill and various other bills. Any LCMs that might be lodged in connection with those bills would be dealt with in the usual way, and we would certainly let the committee know as quickly as possible if any were to trigger the specific interests of this committee. That said, looking down the list, I cannot see any that would require the specific, detailed consideration of this committee; I think that they would all be more for subject committees to consider.

Again, that is a matter of on-going discussion with the UK Government. I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has written to your committee on the issue, and both Administrations are aware of the Scottish Parliament’s desire to have a scrutiny role with regard to those matters. I am also desirous of that, where that is sensible and proportionate to do so. I have made a commitment that we will continue to press that case with the UK Government. I have already made the point that I am looking to meet my counterpart in the Scotland Office, Kirsty McNeill, and I will make that point to her as well.

Of course.

I recognise that that is taking too long; I will not suggest otherwise. Work is on-going on a proposed section 93 order under the Scotland Act 1998 that will correct the error in the 2019 order. One of the challenges that we face, which has raised some complications, is that there is another proposed instrument in play that is interlinked, so that needs to be worked through. That involves us having to interact with the UK Government, which inevitably adds a layer of complexity. I am not trying to suggest that there is fault at either end, but that is an inevitable part of the complexity of the process.

I am looking to meet with my counterpart in the UK Government’s Scotland Office, Kirsty McNeill, in due course. This issue is one of the specific things that I want to discuss to try to make sure that we make some substantial progress so that, the next time that I am before the committee, I hope that I will be able to report that we have achieved such.

I will come back to the committee on that as soon as possible. I need to engage with the UK Government to be able to give a more definitive answer.